It all began back in 1985, when Thane Heins, having studied
electronics at Heritage College in Gatineau, Quebec, started
thinking about how magnets could be used to improve power
generators.

Has college dropout done the impossible and created a
perpetual motion machine? Thane Heins is nervous and
hopeful. It's Jan. 24, a Thursday afternoon, and in four days
the Ottawa-area native will travel to Boston where he'll
demonstrate an invention that appears "though he doesn't dare
say it" to operate as a perpetual motion machine.

The audience, esteemed Massachusetts Institute of Technology
professor Markus Zahn, could either deflate Heins' heretical
claims or add momentum to a 20-year obsession that has broken up
his marriage and lost him custody of his two young daughters.

Zahn is a leading expert on electromagnetic and electronic
systems. In a rare move for any reputable academic, he has
agreed to give Heins' creation an open-minded look rather than
greet it with outright dismissal.

It's a pivotal moment. The invention, at its very least, could
moderately improve the efficiency of induction motors, used in
everything from electric cars to ceiling fans. At best it means
a way of tapping the mysterious powers of electromagnetic fields
to produce more work out of less effort, seemingly creating
electricity from nothing.

Such an unbelievable invention would challenge the laws of
physics, a no-no in the rigid world of serious science. Imagine
a battery system in an all-electric car that can be recharged
almost exclusively by braking and accelerating, or what Heins
calls "regenerative acceleration."

No charging from the grid. No assistance from gasoline. No cost
of fuelling up. No way, say the skeptics.

"It sounds too good to be true," concedes Heins, who formed a
company in 2005 called Potential Difference Inc. to develop and
market his invention. "We get dismissed pretty quickly
sometimes."

It's for this reason the 46-year-old inventor has learned to
walk on thin ice when dealing with academics and engineers, who
he must win over to be taken seriously. Credibility, after all,
can't be invented. It must be earned. "I have to be humble. If
you say the wrong thing at the wrong time, you can lose
support."

The creation in question is a new kind of generator called the
Perepiteia (read related story "Holy crap, this is really
scary"), which in Greek theatre means an action that has the
opposite effect of what its doer intended. Heins torques up the
definition to mean "a sudden reversal of fortune that's a
windfall for humanity."

Deep down, Heins has high hopes. But he also realizes that
merely using those controversial words "perpetual motion"
usually brands a person as batty. In 2006, an Irish company
called Steorn placed an advertisement in The Economist calling
on all the world's scientists to validate its magnet-based "free
energy" technology.

Steorn was met with intense skepticism and accused of being a
scam or hoax. Seventeen months later the company has failed,
despite worldwide attention, to prove anything under scrutiny.
Well-educated people, from Leonardo da Vinci to Harvard-trained
engineer Bruce De Palma (older brother of film director Brian De
Palma), have made similar claims of perpetual motion only to be
slammed down by the mainstream scientific community.

Heins has an even greater uphill battle. He isn't an engineer.
He doesn't have a graduate degrees in physics. He never even
finished his electronics program at Heritage College in
Gatineau, Quebec. "I have mild dyslexia and don't do well in
math, so I didn't do very well in school," he says.

What he does have is a chef's diploma, and spent time as chef
at the Canadian Museum of Civilization before launching his own
restaurant in Renfrew called the Old Town Hall Tea Room. He has
also had political ambitions. In 1999 he ran unsuccessfully as a
candidate for the Green Party of Ontario, deciding a year later
to run as an independent in the federal election.

Today, Heins is focused on showing his invention to anybody
willing to see it, in hopes that somebody smarter than him will
give it credibility. His long-time friend, Kim Cunningham,
manager of communications and government relations at the Ottawa
Centre for Research and Innovation (OCRI) is working part-time
with Potential Difference to help get the message out.

Together, they have demonstrated the Perepiteia to a number of
labs and universities across North America, including the
University of Virginia, Michigan State University, the
University of Toronto and Queens University.

"It's generally always the same reaction," says Heins. "There's
a bit of a scramble on the part of the observer to put what
they're seeing into some sort of context with what they know.
They can't explain it. They don't know what it is."

He'd be happy if somebody did, even if the news was bad. His
wife has kicked him out. He doesn't earn an income. He can't pay
child support. The certainty would be welcome. "I've tried to
quit many times, and thought if I could just be a normal guy I
would have a normal life ... But I had this idea and I believe
it works."

Others want to believe --- or at least help out. Cunningham,
whose brother is general manager at Angus Glen Golf Club,
introduced Heins to the club's president, Kevin Thistle. For two
years Thistle has acted as angel investor, providing start-up
capital needed to incorporate Potential Difference, file patents
and continue research.

Cunningham's boss, OCRI president Jeffrey Dale, helped open
doors at the University of Ottawa and make introductions to its
dean of engineering. As a result, Heins teamed up last fall with
Riadh Habash, a professor at the university's school of
information technology and engineering.

"Dr. Habash has essentially rolled out the red carpet," says
Heins, explaining that he now has access to a university lab and
all the equipment he needs to test and simulate his generator.

In an interview with the Toronto Star, Habash was
cautious but matter-of-fact with what he's seen so far. "It
accelerates, but when it comes to an explanation, there is no
backing theory for it. That's why we're consulting MIT. But at
this time we can't support any claim."

In the meantime, Heins has been on a letter-writing campaign to
raise money for his mission. He's written former U.S.
vice-president Al Gore, Virgin Group founder and billionaire
Richard Branson and John Doerr at venture capital powerhouse
Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers. He's also tried to contact
entrepreneur Elon Musk, chairman of electric car upstart Tesla
Motors, and the "ReCharge IT" project run by Google's
philanthropic arm.

So far no bites, though there have been nibbles. Heins has had
discussions with a well-known investor in Oregon, known to many
as the "godfather of start-ups," who is apparently flirting with
the idea of investing in Potential Difference. "We got the
impression ... he's not necessarily interested in making a tonne
of money, he just wants to see us succeed."

Just before the big day at MIT, the Star spoke with
professor Markus Zahn about what he expected to observe.

"It's hard for me to give an opinion," said Zahn, who admitted
he was excited to see the demonstration. "I don't believe it
will violate the laws of physics. You're not going to get more
energy out than you put in."

He said it's easy for people to set up their tests wrong and
misinterpret what they see. "You've got to look closely."

It's now Jan. 28 --- D Day. Heins has modified his test so the
effects observed are difficult to deny. He holds a permanent
magnet a few centimetres away from the driveshaft of an electric
motor, and the magnetic field it creates causes the motor to
accelerate. It went well.

Contacted by phone a few hours after the test, Zahn is
genuinely stumped --- and surprised. He said the magnet
shouldn't cause acceleration. "It's an unusual phenomena I
wouldn't have predicted in advance. But I saw it. It's real. Now
I'm just trying to figure it out."

There's no talk of perpetual motion. No whisper of broken
scientific laws or free energy. Zahn would never go there --- at
least not yet. But he does see the potential for making electric
motors more efficient, and this itself is no small feat.

"To my mind this is unexpected and new, and it's worth
exploring all the possible advantages once you're convinced it's
a real effect," he added. "There are an infinite number of
induction machines in people's homes and everywhere around the
world. If you could make them more efficient, cumulatively, it
could make a big difference."

Driving home --- 'he can't afford to fly' --- Heins is
exhausted but encouraged. He says Zahn will, and must, evaluate
what he saw on his own terms and time. What's preventing the
engineer from grasping it right away, he says, is his education,
his scientific training.

Step by step, Heins is making progress, but where it will all
lead remains uncertain.

HEINS THANE CHRISTOPHER
2009-01-18 Abstract -- The invention provides a means of
increasing transformer efficiency above 100%. The transformer
consists of a single primary coil and two secondary coils. The t
wo secondary coils are set on a secondary core toroid which is
designed to be maintained at a lower reluctance than the primary
core toroid throughout the transformer's entire operating range.
When the transformer secondary delivers current to a load the
subsequent induced back EMF is not allowed to couple back to the
primary due to the higher reluctance flux path . Instead the
secondary coil's induced back EMF follows the path of least
reluctance into the adjacent secondary coil.

//

//

//

WO2008067649IMPROVED POWER DEVICE

HEINS THANE CHRISTOPHER
2008-06-12

Abstract -- The invention provides a means of
increasing transformer efficiency above 100%. The transformer
consists of a single primary coil and two secondary coils. The t
wo secondary coils are set on a secondary core toroid which is
designed to be maintained at a lower reluctance than the primary
core toroid throughout the transformer's entire operating range.
When the transformer secondary delivers current to a load the
subsequent induced back EMF is not allowed to couple back to the
primary due to the higher reluctance flux path . Instead the
secondary coil's induced back EMF follows the path of least
reluctance into the adjacent secondary coil.

A generating device is disclosed comprising a motor, an axle of
the motor projecting from at least one end of the motor, at
least one rotor mounted on the axle, at least one magnetic pole
mounted on the rotor and a coil mounted in operative proximity
with said magnetic pole.

As the inner coil C1 and C2, rotates around magnets M1 and M2,
a current is induced in the wire/coil.

According to Lenz’s Law an electromagnetic force is produced
around the wire/coil which acts to stop the rotating action as
shown in Figure 1.0 by Force 1 and Force 2 (The Conservation of
Energy).

The inner coil C1 and C2, which is surrounded by magnets M1 and
M2, dictates the magnitude and direction of current flow, which
in turn is determines by faraday’s ;aw;

When a magnet approaches an infinitely long wire or coil an
electric voltage is induced in the wire.

The magnitude of induced voltage (Emf) if determined by:

1 --- The number of turns in the coil, N

2 --- The strength of the external magnetic field, B.

3 --- The area perpendicular to the magnetic field or the area
of the coil, A.

4 --- The rate (speed) at which the magnet approaches the wire,
Delta T.

The inner coil C1 and C2, has a greater number of turns N, a
stronger magnetic field strength B and a greater area
perpendicular to the magnetic field A than the outer 2 coils C3
and C4 which correspond to Magnets M3 and m4.

As the current I flows out through the outer 2 coils C3 and C4,
an electromagnetic field is produced --- Force 3 and Force 4,
which encourages the direction of rotation rather than opposing
it as was seen by the inner coils and the forces F1 and F2. This
can be explained by the Left hand Rule of Electricity for Motors
and the right Hand Rule for Electricity respectfully, where the
thumb points in the direction of force applied F, the index
finger points in the direction of the magnetic field B, and the
middle finger in the direction of the current flow I.

Because Type II High Temperature Superconducting Wire/Coils are
employed there is no resistance in the wire and no loss of
output due to the windings resistance in the exterior coils.

Image 2 details what magnitudes and directions of torques are
produced within the generator.

The calculations show that by changing either the magnetic
field strength B, or the length of the outer coil L, o the
length of the lever are 3 or 4, the complimentary toque produced
at the outer coil can be greatly affected and utilized to negate
not only the negative emf’s but resistance in the bearings and
the wire if a conventional generator design is utilized, i.e.,
copper or silver wire.

Risks and Uncertainties

There is an assumption being made in this design proposal which
suggests that current will flow from the inner coil out through
the outer coils and that the outer coils will not generate their
own current. If there is an initial current being generated in
the outer coils it will be overcome by the current generated by
the inner coil because the inner coil will be designed to
produce a current of greater magnitude and duration.

Care must be taken to ensure that coils C3 and C4 and the rate
(speed) at which the wire/coil approaches magnets M3 and m4
Delta T, does not have a negative effect on the generator’s
performance.

Current sensitive switching may be employed if needed to ensure
the desired direction of current flow.

Perepiteia Generator Harnesses Back EMF - Thane Heins of
Potential Difference Inc stumbled upon a way of making electric
induction motors work, at the very least, more efficiently. At
most, he may have found a way to manipulate magnetic fields so
that instead of slowing down a generator it speeds it up. (PESWiki;
Feb. 6, 2008)Comments No Useful OutputOn Feb. 6, 2008, Peter
Lindemann, DSc, writes:

I have reviewed all seven video links. In all fairness, I would
like to say that Thane has built some nice demonstrations and
spent a lot of time running experiments. That said, the films
show nothing important. First of all, the films do not show
enough detailed information to evaluate the demonstrations.
Second, no free energy is shown. In fact, the generators are
never shown producing any useful outputs. They are either shown
producing voltage in "open circuit" mode, or they are shown in
"short circuit" mode, where the generated voltage drops below
one volt. So, ZERO WATTS are produced in either case.

The changes in mechanical drag are due to changes in inductance
and hysteresis. Back in the 1980's, both John Bedini and I
independently worked with "variable reluctance" generators. We
both saw that these designs work like an inverse to a standard
induction generator. That is, they produce maximum drag in "open
circuit" mode, and minimum drag in "short circuit" mode. John
found that the point of maximum benefit in this situation is to
charge a battery, where the impedance of the generator "sees"
the battery as a "near short circuit". Under these
circumstances, the generator free-wheels and the battery charges
quickly.

Unfortunately, Thane is not showing any useful benefits from
the generator output. So, there is no "efficiency" to calculate
because there is no output!

The real problem with these demonstrations has to do with his
motor drive. The motor driving his system is a single phase
induction motor. This type of motor has almost zero starting
torque, and only produces its rated power at rated speed. So,
the rated speed of his motor is probably in the neighborhood of
1725 RPM. Running this motor in the 100 RPM range converts 98%
of the input electric power to HEAT. He says he has a capacitor
in the input circuit to the motor, but this is never shown in
schematic, so we don't know how it is hooked up. If the
capacitor is connected in SERIES with the motor winding, it will
act as a current limiter, and skew the power factor of the motor
towards reactive power. This is fine, IF you want to limit the
mechanical power of the motor as well. If the capacitor is
connected in PARALLEL with the motor winding, it will act to
produce reactive power for the motor locally, and reduce the
amount of power it draws from the wall. But again, this would
only be significant at rated speed.

The effect he shows when a magnetic field is applied to the
motor shaft would be undetectable if he was operating the motor
correctly. It is a very weak effect. It is probably caused by
the external magnetic field interfering with the induced
magnetic field of the rotor. This would not happen if the motor
coils were not being severely current limited and the rotor was
not "slipping" severely in the rotating magnetic field of the
stator.

My GUESS is that the capacitor is in SERIES with the motor
winding. This will limit the current to the motor to a specific
maximum. At the speeds he is running these motors, the only
other mechanism to hold back the input current would be the
resistance of the wire in the motor coils. If that is all he
had, the motor would quickly over-heat and melt the insulation
right off the wire. The fact that the motor is running hot is
proved in the seventh film where a large black fan is shown
blowing on the motor!

From the data presented, my best estimate of the efficiency of
the demonstrations is that over 90% of the energy going into the
motor is converted to heat. The changes in drag of the
generators is standard behavior for variable reluctance
topologies, so accelerations or decelerations of the motor DO
NOT represent energy production, just changes in HYSTERESIS
DRAG. Since no output energies are ever measured, the input to
output efficiency ratio is ZERO.

Thane Heins may have more important discoveries in his lab, but
they are not demonstrated in these videos.

I'm really sorry to have to comment negatively on Thane's work.
He is exploring a new effect, and he is pretty brave to put out
his data. It took John and I years to figure out what these
kinds of generators were really doing and why. It is not
obvious, and it takes a lot of experimenting and thinking to
work it out.

Thane really needs to show the complete schematic of his test
apparatus, including the strength and orientation of the magnets
on his generator wheel, as well as the specifications on his
drive motor. There is a lot of important data missing from the
demos.

Nothing more than a hysteresis brake

Feb. 6, 2008, DMBoss
(http://www.overunity.com/index.php/topic,4047.msg75615.html#msg75615):
Quote from: blindsangamon on Today at 02:45:23 AM It appears that
the Perepiteia Motor is nothing more than a hysteresis brake.
Placing the steel rods (wound by coils) near the spinning magnets
induces alternating magnetic flux within the rods, the resulting
magnetic hysteresis causes drag on the rotating disk, and heat
losses within the steel rods. Shorting out the coils effectively
shields the steel rods from the disk's magnetic field, eliminating
the hysteresis drag. This causes the motor to speed up - but not
as much as it would if the steel rods were removed completely.
BUSTED! Hi:

blindsangamon is correct. This is a common phenomenon regards
"generators", but one often not commonly known about if you are
not working with AC motors and generators all the time. So the
professor at MIT may not have this practical engineering savvy
to identify the issues at first glance.

An hysteresis brake is one way to describe the apparently
anomalous increase in speed when you short the generator coils.
What EVERY ferromagnetic core does when exposed to varying
magnetic fields is to have it's domains rock or flip direction
in accord with the magnetic field changes impinging on them.

This consumes power in the "friction" between domains as they
sort of scrape past each other. It results in the material
heating up. In addition to this hystersis "loss" is an eddy
current effect within bulk steel from the very same time varying
magnetic fields, also making heating of the core. These two
effects combined are commonly termed "core loss".

Core loss produces a reaction torque in a generator, in that
the domain "friction" resists their aligning with the external
field - causing more drag torque. Eddy currents make magnetic
fields which oppose the fields making the eddy currents too,
making more drag torque.

Now "core loss" in any ferromagnetic core material is directly
proportional to the induction, B. Put another way the higher the
delta flux density, the more core loss you get. (it is also
proportional to the frequency, but let's assume a constant freq
here, even though it is not at a constant one - it speeds up and
slows down, again a neophyte mistake - you must measure things
here at common speeds/freqs to make comparisons accurately)

And the induction, B is then what produces the coil voltage via
Faraday/Lenz laws. That is voltage is the time derivative of
delta flux. So people, when you short a generator coil and it's
voltage drops to near zero, you can be certain that the delta B
within the coil's core is also near zero!

So if you started with a delta B of say 1,000 gauss at no load
on the coils, and your core material produces say 15 watts of
core loss per pound of core (solid steel is in this ballpark,
which is why we laminate special steels for transformers which
takes the core loss down to about 2 watts per pound) then you'd
have some serious drag torque experienced by the drive motor
with coils open circuit.

Now if you short the coils and drop the delta B down to say 10
gauss, you have REDUCED the core loss by a factor of 1000/10=100
times less core loss when shorted than when open circuited!

This means 100 times less drag torque felt by the drive motor!
(therefore the common shaft speeds up when coils are shorted,
duhhhh)

This is amateur hour gone mad - both in the videos and mostly
in these lists! Which does nothing but hurt the cause of getting
O/U to the masses in my view, as it simply reinforces to the
powers that be in the scientific community that it is a bunch of
flakes and idiots making these claims!

Now I will also say, that heavily loading certain geometry of
generator, can produce some gain. I have several examples on the
bench which do. But they are proprietary and I don't care to
share this with lists. BUT you have to do proper energy/power
balances to measure this gain. And you have to endeavor to
reduce core losses to a minimum and account for core loss change
when you heavily load the coils too.

I have one which gets a gain in excess of the entire core loss
value, both eddy and hysteresis - therefore the gain cannot be
from this artifact that plagues all coil/core systems. But it is
a modest gain, and yes the rotor does want to speed up. But you
have to manage this speed, and measure the loaded and unloaded
condition at the same shaft speed, because friction and windage
change too when speed changes.

Then you have to measure True power at the shaft input via
torque sensing and speed, against True output power, including
friction, core loss, coil heating and direct electrical output
for a complete energy/power balance. In fact there is an IEEE
protocol for doing a complete power balance on motors and
generators, which includes all these things.

This person did few if none of these things properly and is
delusional about the apparent speed increasing meaning it is
O/U. There could be a small amount of gain in his sloppy and
amateurish system, but it is completely overriden by mundane,
conventional effects as "blindsangamon" correctly points out.

Sorry for being so terse with you folks, but it is very
annoying to watch so many people do harm to the cause by
spouting off without really having a grasp of conventional
ElectroMagnetics. Both amateur's like in these videos, and
indeed a large percentage of the armchair critics populating
these lists! Do your homework before putting foot in mouth!

There's a few rational voices out there, blindsangamon being
one, and most of you then deride these voices with nonsense and
blind faith!

here's a simplified protocol for measuring a generator's
complete power balance:

Pick or know the optimal final speed of the system. Use only
this shaft speed for all measurements.
1 Measure all parameters in a generator "no load" condition
including: 2 Friction alone, meaning with no magnets or mag
fields acting on the cores. 3 Then include the mag fields and
measure the input drag power (torque times angular velocity).

The difference between 3 minus 2 is the core loss at no load.

4 Measure the DC resistance of all coils as they would be
connected in a loaded condition (i.e. series or parallel).
5 Load the generator at the same speed as the no load tests.
6 measure input power via torque times speed. (Newton-meters
times RPM times 0.1047 = shaft power in watts)
7 measure True output electrical power. Not with DMM's. but with
appropriate True Power meters or analyzers.
8 measure coil current, and calculate coil's "Joule heating" via
I^2R.
9 measure and compare coil voltage compared to no load voltage
for a ratio with which to discount core loss.
Then take the loaded input shaft power in watts as INPUT to
system.

Against this Input, you add the following:
a electrical output in watts
b friction in watts
c core loss via no load core loss times the voltage drop ratio
(so if no load core loss were 37 watts, and no load voltage was
125V and loaded voltage is 83V, then the ratio is 0.664.
Multiply 0.664 times no load core loss of 37 watts to equal
24.57 watts output core loss)
d coil heating via I^2R

Add up item a through d for the total system OUTPUT.

Now divide Output by Input for your COP. (Coefficient of
Performance)

Note friction, core loss and coil heat are legitimate
outputs.... they heat the room! Useful output is an arbitrary
distinction based on subjective criteria. If you want shaft
power then heat is not useful. If however you want a heater,
then shaft power is not useful! So to know in the absolute sense
if a thing is over unity or not, you have to account for ALL
outputs in a balance sheet.

That's another pet peeve of mine - those who dismiss everything
they deem as "not useful"! Now suppose you had a system which
routinely produces 200% more heat output in coil heating and
core heating while it turns a shaft as in some newfangled motor.
The shaft power COP is only 35%, but overall the system is 200%
gainful. These persons I refer to would dismiss this as not
being useful because the shaft power is under unity!

When in fact a home heating system would require a heat
exchange mechanism to get heat from your machine to the air,
thus it requires a pump - moving air or water or both. So you
could make "use" of both the excess heating and the shaft power
from said system!

My point is at these early stages it is imperative that you
measure all aspects even if you may "think" they aren't useful.
For complete energy balances and because overunity may not come
in the form you wish it to!

In the back of a University of Ottawa engineering lab, inventor
Thane Heins will soon be adding light bulbs to his electrical
generator, a modest improvement considering he says his device
already transcends the basic laws of physics.

The suggestion was made to improve the frequent demonstrations
Mr. Heins gives after he and his contraption became Internet
sensations attracting worldwide attention.

The 46-year-old from Almonte says the lights will serve as
visual cues of the electrical load he already applies to his
system, which should, in theory, slow everything down.

Thane Heins says he'll be more careful about how he
describes his invention after a storm of controversy erupted
on the Internet. ( Photo by Bruno Schlumberger, The Ottawa
Citizen)

Instead his electric motor accelerates when the load is
applied, in an apparent contradiction of the law of conservation
of energy.

Videos of the demonstration have been viewed more than 280,000
times on YouTube in the last four weeks. His story was also
featured on Gizmodo, Slashdot, BoingBoing and Wired.com.

That's the buzz you generate when you claim to have stumbled
upon the "genesis of perpetual motion."

It's also an example of how the Internet can vault an unknown
person to a global audience, said Michael Geist, a University of
Ottawa professor and a specialist in Internet law.

"Some of the most popular online media sites and blogging sites
have audiences that in some instances exceed mainstream media,"
Mr. Geist said.

Mr. Heins said there have been too many phone calls to return
from investors the world over who have offered up millions in
seed money. Even NASA has expressed interest in what Mr. Heins
calls Perepiteia, a variation of a word used in Greek theatre to
describe an action that has the opposite effect of what was
intended.

But the response on high-tech websites, blogs and chat rooms
has been far from charitable.

"This guy seems to be a crook who tries to do his job by
letting the victims read between the lines," one user wrote on
Slashdot.

"Oh no, not another one of these crackpot ideas" another wrote
in a high-tech chat room.

Even those who are willing to give him the benefit of the
doubt, can't seem to resist taking shots either. "Of course, if
it proves genuine, we WILL have to burn him," someone wrote on
BoingBoing.

So now Mr. Heins is not just modifying his prototype to make it
more understandable, he's also trying to choose his words more
carefully to avoid offending mainstream science with tainted
concepts like perpetual motion.

"Those dirty words," he said. "We do not use those words, no
matter what. Because as soon as you do, you're dead."

That kind of talk has strained his relationship with Markus
Khan, an MIT electromagnetics professor, who gave the inventor
an audience last month in Boston, Mr. Heins said.

Mr. Khan said he was surprised by the acceleration effect,
which he said had the potential to increase the efficiency of
electric motors in a wide range of common applications. He was
dismayed, however, to see his name linked to reports, many of
which characterized the invention as a "perpetual motion
machine."

"I can't understand how he can even breathe the words
'perpetual motion.' He plugs it into the wall," Mr. Kahn said,
adding he, too, has been flooded with calls and e-mails.

In an e-mail to Mr. Heins, he wrote: "Any talk of perpetual
motion, over unity efficiency, etc. discredits you, now me, and
your ideas." He added that he would not be interested in
endorsing the device until "the foolishness is stopped of
hinting that your motor violates fundamental laws of physics."

He said Mr. Heins may have made a valuable discovery that could
improve motors, but said a battery of tests is now required to
measure the efficiency gains and qualify the science behind the
invention.

The key to his model is the interaction of electromagnetic
fields with the motor, which speed up a magnetized wheel when it
should slow it down.

"With my system, when you load it, the speed goes up, and you
actually have to lower the power going to the motor to maintain
speed," he said.

It's analogous to using the light and heat produced by a
lightbulb to power the bulb itself, with energy to spare, a
heretical notion in thermodynamics.

Mr. Heins said he believes Perepiteia could revolutionize the
energy industry and reduce global dependence on oil. His next
goal is to produce a prototype of an electric car that uses the
invention.

A $15-million offer was already put on the table by Jacques
Nichols, the Portland-based self-declared "godfather of
startups," Mr. Heins said.

The idea of using magnets in this way first came to Mr. Heins
in 1985 while he was studying electronics at Heritage College in
Gatineau.

Because he was working out of his basement, he used an
electrical motor to generate electricity, a counterintuitive
method that prevented earlier discovery of the phenomenon.

In 2005 he founded Potential Difference Inc., and a few weeks
ago moved his lab into loftier digs at the University of Ottawa

Mr. Heins' personal investment in the device has cost him his
marriage, custody of his two daughters, aged 4 and 7, his
restaurant and his savings.

But he said is driven by an obligation: "Until we stop killing
each other for oil, I'm going to keep doing what I'm doing.
Sooner or later the rest of the world is going to catch up with
me."

Ottawa inventor Thane Heins is steadily winning
supporters for his electrical motor, which he claims can
produce more energy than it consumes. While many are
skeptical of the theory, no one has been able to
disprove it. (Feb. 12, 2009)

Thane Heins, tired and a little grumpy after a long flight
from California, walks onto the stage of an Ottawa conference
room and begins a sales pitch that usually raises more
eyebrows than money.

One of three entrepreneurs chosen earlier this month to
present at a "Pitch The Dragons" contest, a spin on
the CBC show Dragons' Den, Heins has invented a
technology that he says will put out more energy than it
consumes. His invention, he boldly claims, offers a way to
make electric cars that can travel hundreds of kilometres
from the energy in a small, inexpensive battery.

It's a tough crowd. One of the contest judges is TV-show
judge Robert Herjavec, a multimillionaire who just minutes
earlier shared with the audience his own story of success
and the life it now funds - the fancy gas-guzzling cars, the
mansion, the luxurious yacht.

The two men are oil and water. Heins, who wants to help the
world kick its fossil-fuel addiction, immediately gets his
back up. Herjavec is dismissive from the get-go.

â€œIt turned into a shouting match in front of 300 people,"
Heins says later that day. "I didn't mind him kicking sand
in my face, but the thing that really got me is when he said
I don't get it. He pushed me a little too far and I fought
back."

It was just another day for this underdog entrepreneur, a
man trying to convince mainstream society he has discovered
something real, which in this case means it has broken a
major law of physics.

The Star first profiled Heins and his controversial
invention a year ago. In a nutshell, he had figured out a
way to eliminate the electromagnetic friction that typically
limits the performance of an electrical generator -- an
effect known as "Back EMF". Not only that, but he also
learned how to redirect that magnetic energy so that,
instead of causing resistance, it gave an electrical motor
connected to the generator a significant boost.

The result, as far as Heins was concerned, violated Lenz's
law or what's often called the law of diminishing returns.
For many, that equates to a perpetual motion machine, an
impossible claim in the conventional field of physics.

Within no time the story spread globally across the
Internet, became chatter on blogs, and triggered a flood of
email to this reporter's inbox, some praising Heins for his
determination, others calling the Star irresponsible for
giving credibility to his claim. The story, love it or hate
it, was the second-most read article on TheStar.com in 2008.

Much has happened over the past 12 months. Heins still
operates out of a lab out at the University of Ottawa, he
continues to evolve his invention, and he routinely
demonstrates those improvements to the world by posting
videos on YouTube.

"The last video I watched still showed evidence of some
fundamental misunderstandings of physics, combined with
wishful thinking," said Seanna Watson, an electrical
engineer who is also a member of a scientific group called
Ottawa Skeptics.

Heins gave the group a demonstration of his technology
shortly at the Star's story was published. Two months later
Watson posted a critique online titled "In This Town We Obey
The Law of Thermodynamics." Yes, she admitted, the
electrical motor does speed up without any increase in input
power, but increased speed does not automatically mean an
increase in mechanical work.

"Heins appears earnest and basically honest, but
persistently self-deluded," Watson wrote. "While the
speed-up behaviour of the generator currently lacks an
established explanation, there is no reason to think that it
represents any challenge to currently known laws of
physics."

It's a criticism Heins has heard before: You haven't proved
you're right, so you must be wrong. At the same time, nobody
has been able to prove he's wrong.

Some want to believe, or have kept an inquiring mind. Heins
has been contacted by NASA, heâ€™s had several investors,
entrepreneurs, engineers and academics show up at his lab
for a demonstration. Heins always obliges -- he says he has
nothing to hide.

At one point last spring, rock legend Neil Young wanted to
adapt Heins' invention to power a 1959 Lincoln Continental
MK IV, which is being entered into the $10-million
automotive X-Prize -- a contest in search of the world's
most efficient automobile.

Heins, Young, and his engineer Uli Kruger had much dialogue
over email and telephone about the rock star's "LincVolt"
project. At one point, Heins sent Young some information by
email on the performance of his generator and copied the
message to dozens of other people unrelated to Young's
project.

Young replied to Heins that he didn't appreciate his
private email being broadcast to the world. "Please do not
do this again!" he wrote, but then quickly breezed over the
incident. "This in no way negates my enthusiasm and
curiosity about your project," he assured Heins.

Heins, not one to worship the famous, sent a terse
response: "I just sent you an email with proof that my
generator violates the Law of Conservation of Energy and you
are worried about your private email? Are you
serious?" He accused Toronto-born Young of being
shallow.

The relationship eventually fizzled. Two week after that
exchange, Young, in an email to the Star, was still
gracious in his assessment of Heins' invention. "I am
impressed -- it is on our list of things to watch."

Day by day, bit by bit, Hein' passion and
persistence is steadily gaining him supporters -- people
convinced that what they're seeing is important enough to
move the technology out of the lab and into real-world
applications.

Through his Ottawa-based company Potential Difference Inc.,
Heins has been in serious talks with a designer of small
wind turbines in Montreal, a senior engineer from a large
utility in Turkey, and a small manufacturer of electrical
equipment in Toronto. He's altered the design of his
prototype as well by developing a high-voltage
"self-excited" motor coil.

"We can use it to accelerate (the motor shaft) from 100
revolutions per minute to 3,500 without adding an ounce of
power," according to Heins.

His most promising partnership so far is with California
Diesel & Power, a $10-million company that sells back-up
generators for cellphone towers throughout California.
AT&T is one of its largest customers.

Owen Charles, head of technology at California D&P,
viewed Heins' demonstration videos on YouTube last year and
was intrigued. He flew to Ottawa for a live demonstration
and was convinced the technology worked, at least enough to
pursue it further.

"There's acceleration, but what I don't see is being able
to harness more power out than power in," said Charles
during a phone interview. "But Thane is starting to get more
and more watts, more power, out of the coil, in addition to
the acceleration."

Heins made a prototype for Charles, who's been
demonstrating it to customers and contacts throughout
California. During a demonstration to some AT&T contacts
the motor was spinning at its full rated capacity using only
75 watts of power, when normally it takes 250 watts to do
the same work. "To me, that makes the motor a hell of a lot
more efficient."

In the diesel generator business, it means Heins'
technology at the very least can be used to get much
more work out of a generator using the same amount of fuel.
That' s enough for Charles, who wants to license the
innovation. "We're trying to become a West Coast hub for
this type of technology."

But is it perpetual motion? "It has the potential to be
that," said Heins. "But there are many hoops we have
to jump through before we get there." Still, he
believes that getting there is achievable. To add
credibility to his claim, he plans to pay the U.S.
Department of Energy's Oak Ridge National Laboratory to
evaluate the technology.

It doesn't help, however, that Heins often undermines what
credibility he has earned. At times he seems to exaggerate
the significance of certain events and relationships. He's
written emails to former U.S. vice presidents Dick Cheney
and Al Gore claiming he's got a way to eliminate the world's
dependence on oil and bring the troops home from Iraq. It's
the kind of behaviour that makes people turn away, not pay
attention.

He's also working with The Orion Project, a non-profit
group founded by conspiracy theorist Steven Greer, who has
founded several UFO groups and claims to have been in
contact with extraterrestrials. Greer believes the
government is aware that perpetual motion machines exist and
that there has been a massive global cover-up.

Still, all the doubt and scepticism could vanish if
California D&P actually makes a more efficient
generator. The company has also entered the automotive
X-Prize with plans, like Neil Young once had, to use Heins'
generator.

"Within a month or two months, we should have that
generator in a car," said Heins. "All we're going to try to
do is run the car in the conventional mode, measure the
number of miles we get out of it, then put our generator in
and see if we can get more miles out."

If it demonstrates the dramatic improvement Heins expects
to see, maybe Al Gore will pay attention.